The understanding of the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution and its relevance for searches and seizures is critical for any investigator, and it strikes a balance between individual liberties and the rights of society. Most importantly, the limitation on any search is that the scope must be narrow, if a search is not conducted legally, the evidence obtained is worthless. As a matter of fact, the exclusionary rule established that courts may not accept evidence obtained by unreasonable search and seizure, regardless of its relevance to a case.
The Fourth Amendment Violation
(Should the legal requirements for obtaining a search warrant be changed?) You are probably quite familiar with the phrase “a man's home is his castle.” This quote is actually a proverb, "an Englishman's home is his castle" which became very popular after the Attorney General for England during the early 1600s, Sir Edward Coke said: "Everyone is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose". Coke spoke those words following what is known as the Semayne's case, which essentially acknowledged — all the way back in 1604 — that the king did not have unbridled authority to intrude on his subjects' dwellings unless the purpose was lawful and a warrant had been obtained. It is the Semayne's case that actually laid the groundwork for the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads as follows: The right to the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. According to the Fourth amendment, "and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation". If that be the case, why are there so many lies and false arrest...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document